Vakkachan v. Belbi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 666 of 2008(C) -----------------------------CRA.660/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR MC.20/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ VAKKACHEN, AGED 67, AGRICULTURIST S/O.ANATONY, AMBOOKEN HOUSE WEST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE AND DESOM MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ ## RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. BELBY, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.JOSEPH CHAKKALAMATTATHU HOUSE, VYNTHALA DESOM KALLOOR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR SRI.K.DIVAKARAN SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2008, THE COURT ON 11-04-2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 666 of 2008** - *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 11-04-2008** ## **ORDER** In this Revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner (Vakkachan) who is the 65 year old father-inlaw of the first respondent herein (Belby) challenges the appellate judgment dated 5-2-2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl.Appeal 660 of 2007. 2. The first respondent herein (Belbi) who is the daughter-inlaw of the petitioner herein moved the J.F.C.M., Chalakkudy by filing M.C. 20 of 2007 under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 3. The case of Belbi can be summarised as follows:- The respondents to M.C. 20 of 2007 are the parents of her husband Betto who is working as an A.C. Technician at Dubai. The marriage between Betto and Belbi was on 10-4-2005. Belbi resided along with Betto and his parents in Ambookkan House at West Chalakkudy Village for 16 days after which Betto went back to Gulf to rejoin his employment. Thereafter Belbi continued to reside in the house of the first respondent Vakkachan. While residing there the Crl.R.P. No. 666 of 2008 -:2:- parents of her husband started alleging that Belbi was not beautiful and that their son would get a more beautiful girl. They also demanded more dowry from Belbi. Her mother-in-law had a complaint that Belbi was not fair enough to be the wife of Betto. The parents of her husband compelled her to wear sari and did not permit her to wear churidar. On 3-11-2006 they called her obscene words and Vakkachan attempted to beat her and the parents of her husband tried to administer poison to her. She managed to escape into a room and bolted the room from inside. She could get out of the room only after her parents came there and then the parents of her husband sent her out of the shared house-hold. She went to her house along with her parents. She contacted her husband over the phone and her husband directed her to remain in her parental home and that she would be taken back when he came on leave. But when her husband came on leave during December 2006, he did not care to visit her or to take her back to Ambookkan house as promised. Ambookkan House is the shared household where Belbi has a right of residence. At the time of her marriage six lakhs rupees in cash and a steel almirah had been given. The parents of her husband used to demand more dowry. Her father-in-law discontinued her studies for the reason that she got low marks for B.Com. Most of the ill-treatment was committed Crl.R.P. No. 666 of 2008 -:3:- by the parents of her husband when their daughter Gracy, the 3[rd] respondent came on leave. Whenever Belbi cried they used to accuse her that she was mad and would ask her to go and commit suicide. It was hoping that her husband would come and take her to Ambookan house that she did not inform the police. After her husband came on leave and returned to gulf he did not send any reply to her letters. He was not lifting the phone also whenever she used to call him. 4. The revision petitioner, his wife and daughter resisted the application contending inter alia as follows:- The counter petitioners came to know of the ex-parte order dated 8-8-2007 only on 18-8-2007 when Belbi attempted to trespass into Ambookkan House. Thereupon the first counter petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 25 of the Act seeking to revoke the said order. By that time Belbi filed a petition before the police seeking protection to execute the interim ex parte order. Neither Betto nor his wife Belbi has in any manner of right over Ambookkan house. Belbi cannot treat the said house as a shared household. Belbi has not suffered nor was she subjected to any domestic violence . Their son Betto has filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Thrissur as O.P. 569 of 2007 on 28-7-2007. Belbi lodged a complaint before the Magistrate alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 498 A Crl.R.P. No. 666 of 2008 -:4:- I.P.C. and got it forwarded to the police resulting in the Chalakkudy Police registering Crime No. 471 of 2007. She lodged a complaint before the C.I. of Police, Chalakkudy against the parents of her husband and consequently all the gold ornaments and other articles including her garments were returned to her on 19-12-2007 as evidenced by the receipt duly issued by her. 5. On 8-8-2007 the learned Magistrate passed an ex-parte interim order restraining the parents of Belbi's husband from throwing Belbi out from Ambookkan house and to allow her to enter the said house and continued to have access to her personal effects. After entering appearance, even though the parents of Betto filed a petition under Sec. 25 of the Domestic Violence Act seeking to cancel the interim ex parte order, the learned Magistrate refused to do so. Vakkachan, the father-in-law of Belbi filed Crl. Appeal 660 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur challenging the interim ex-parte order. As per judgment dated 5-2-2008 the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence the Revision. 6. I heard Adv. Sri.P. Vijayabhanu, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Adv. Sri. Divakaran, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Belbi. Crl.R.P. No. 666 of 2008 -:5:- 7. The learned counsel appearing for Belbi made the following submissions before me opposing the revision:- Belbi's matrimony lasted only for 16 days from 10-4-2005 which is the date on which she was married by Betto. During the said 16 days she lived with her husband and her parents at Ambookkan house in West Chalakkudy which is her matrimonial home. After her husband returned to gulf, she was constantly ill-treated by Betto's parents with demands of dowry and alleging that she was not beautiful. They even interfered with her personal matters to insist that she should wear a sari instead of a churidar. On 3-11-2006, unable to bear the ill-treatment by the counter-petitioner she locked herself up in a room in that house and contacted her parents who came rushing. She was forcibly sent along with her parents to her parental house at Kallur Vadakkummuri Village alleging that she was recalcitrant and disobedient. When contacted, eventhough her husband consoled her and asked her to stay there till he came and promised her to take her back to her matrimonial home he did not visit her when he came on leave in December 2005 nor did he take her back to her matrimonial home. Betto returned to the Gulf without meeting her. She was finally compelled to get back her gold ornaments and personal effects through the police on 19-01-2007. The receipt in that Crl.R.P. No. 666 of 2008 -:6:- behalf was passed by the revision petitioner and not by her husband. She was forced to file a petition against her parents-in-law under Sec. 498 A I.P.C. on 28-7-2007. The police charge-sheeted the revision petitioner and others on 2-8-2007. The revision petitioner took a power-of-attorney from Betto and filed an original petition for divorce on 20-4-2007. The present M.C. was filed by Belbi in 7-8-2007. Thereafter she was compelled to file an O.P. before the Family Court, Thrissur for return of money on 9-11-2007. The decision in S.R. Batra's case relied on by the revision petitioner has no application to the present proceedings. In **S.R. Batra's case** the shared household exclusively belonging to the husband was at Ghaziabad and not in Delhi where the apartment belonged to the husband's mother. The orders passed by the courts below do not call for interference by this Court. 8. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. In these and other proceedings filed by Belbi she has admitted in unmistakable terms that Ambookkan House exclusively belongs to the revision petitioner who is her father-in-law. If so, neither Betto nor his wife can claim any right of residence in that house unless permitted by the revision petitioner. Going by the averments in M.C. 20 of 2007 Belbi has unequivocally alleged that Crl.R.P. No. 666 of 2008 -:7:- her life in Ambookkan House in the company of her parents -in-law was miserable and it was impossible for her to reside there. I quote her own allaegations in the petition. “വ�ദ�യ� വഴക�പറഞ�� ച�ത വ�ള�ച��ആതഹത�യക� പ�പര�പ�ച��വ�ദ�യ� മ�നസ�ക പ�ഢന� നടത�ഒഴ�വ�ക�നത�ന� �പത�കള �*മ�ച�ട�ളത�ണ �. �പത�കള�യട മ�നസ�കപ�ഢന�മ/ല� വ�ദ�ക� ഭരത�ഗ�ഹത�ല ത�മസ�ക�ന കഴ���ത���ട�ളത�ണ�”” If this was her plight during her residence in Ambookkan house, I fail to see as to how she can have a peaceful residence in that house on the strength of a court order. A reading of the decision of the Apex Court in _**S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra - 2007 (3) SCC 169**_ will go to show that the said verdict applies on all force to the facts of the present case. The argument that the house at Ghaziabad was the shared house-hold in S.R. Batra's case cannot be accepted. The house of Ghaziabad was the self acquisition of the husband and Tarun the wife in that case had never resided at Ghaziabad along with her husband. Hence, Ambookkan House cannot be, in the light of _**S.R.**_ Crl.R.P. No. 666 of 2008 -:8:- _**Batra's**_ case, treated as the shared house-hold of Belbi. The order passed by the courts below overlooking these vital aspects cannot, therefore, be sustained and are accordingly set aside. Belbi cannot claim Ambookkan House as her shared household so as to barge an enforced entry into that house and sow the seeds of disharmony and hatred and make her own life miserable. In the result the impugned orders are set aside and this R.P. is allowed as above. **V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)** ani.